I have been looking to buy a DSLR whithin the £300 to £420 price range and have been looking over alot of current models. From what i have seen the sony a35k looks like the best on paper with alot of features and i think above average image quality to back this up on paper canon and nikon models such as d5100, d3100 and eos 600d are lacking but do these facts on paper mean overall image quality is better or is the quality on the nikon and canon much better could anyone help me to decide between the d3100 and sony a35k!

You should not solely depend on what's on paper to decide which body is better at a certain price point. With the bodies you've mentioned, differences in image quality will be much more appreciable with the lens you use. Advantages you read on paper may have less relevance in real-world scenarios.

You can buy the most expensive DSLR body or the one that on paper is "the best" but if you put cheap, mediocre, not so optically sharp glass in front of it, you'll be wasting most of its potential. This video explains it very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

Maybe you should handle the bodies to determine which feels most comfortable and perhaps you should consider which lenses you'll buy.

It could turn out that the body that's "worst" on paper is the one you prefer it terms of ergonomics and if you like the ergonomics, you'll probably use it more and the more you use it, the more likely it will be that you'll take great pictures.

I'm not saying the cheapest, least featured body with a sharp lens is guaranteed to suit you for every occasion since there are specific requirements for features that appear in more expensive bodies, I'm just saying that in terms of pure IQ, the lens generally has a much greater bearing on it than the body you put behind that lens.

Welcome to the forum! Some very good advice by Rorschach. Like said above do not underestimate the effect lenses have on your image quality and make sure you try out any bodies you are thinking of buying in store first.

Make mine a third on what Rorschach said. Brand is not as important here for a first time purchase, nor are paper stats. They're all good cameras and all capable, all can do very well or very poorly with the photographer and the lens making the bigger impact. Don't worry about the paper stats as much as how each camera fits your hands, which you like the feel and shape of, how easy the controls are to get at and understand, and whether or not the camera has the key or important features you specifically think you'll use or want to try.

The most important when choosing a camera is to think of how you will be using it. It's a bit like asking what's better, a Hyundai, Ford, Toyota, GM, etc. All of them have great and not so great cars. And if you're a hunter, you'll probably want a pickup, whereas if you're a highway driver, maybe a sedan would be more your style.

Those 3 companies all make good cameras, and those models you mentioned have tons of very happy customers.

If you're looking in image quality alone, the lens will often be your biggest problem. Canon has a really nice inexpensive 50mm f/1.8, which is great when a 50mm is appropriate. For video mode, the T4i will probably be the strongest affordable dSLR for a while, with the new STM function, but the STM lenses will come at a premium. Sony usually has userfriendly video modes, and Nikon would be in last place still when it comes to video.

So look at what's important for you, and see which of those cameras fill your criteria. Or if you want more advise, let us know how you will be using the camera (stills, videos, a bit of both?) and what kind of subjects and environment you'll be shooting in.

Sony usually has userfriendly video modes, and Nikon would be in last place still when it comes to video.

I can't say I agree with that statement, especially about Nikon because it sounds much more one-sided that the reality.

User-friendly modes are very much a YMMV feature - a lot of the time, certain functions may be removed or reduced from the user-friendly modes, which with some will easily go unoticed as they don't use (and probably won't need) them whereas with others the absence or reduction of those functions would be extremely frustrating. I'm not saying that's the case with Sony but I wouldn't suggest Sony's video mode will be the easiest to use.

The Nikon D5100 and D3100 have full-time AF in video mode, which is absent in the 600D or any Canon in the OP's budget. There are a couple of modes/filters the D5100 has that are absent in the 600D. With some, that absence would be a deal breaker so on that basis, Nikon is unlikely to be in last place in the context of video recording.

As you said, it's important to evaluate what works best for the individual but I don't think it's clear cut to state that Nikon is decisively at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to video.

Don't forget Pentax - there are pretty good deals on the entry-level K-R at present - and it has more functions and abilities than the 'bottom two models' from Canon or Nikon...

Or the new Pentax K30 - entry-mid-level, about US$800.00 - weather-resistant body (needs the WR lenses to complete that function), has 2 command-dials, and rather more abilities than similarly priced cameras from other makers. You can't get a WR DSLR body from other makers at anywhere near that price. And the low-light / high-ISO abilities are better than even the K-X and K-R.

With the K30, the video format has been changed to H264 (MPEG4-AVC), and the video controls greatly improved.

Note that with Pentax, the K-mount Film-SLR lenses are compatible back to the late 1970s, the Takumar and other very good optics M42 screw-mount lenses before that.

Which means that good primes in many lengths are widely available. These can be better than "modern digital-era" primes for video, as the manual "focus throw" is much wider - modern lenses can be around 70-90 degrees - the K and M series, and Takumars - over 250 degrees,

The K30 is worth at least a look at the Reviews, before deciding...

After a bit of time with a K200D, I've been saving towards a K-R.... With what's being said and shown about the K30 - a much better investment - I've aimed a bit more saving at one...

agree with oldwarbler. Pentax K30 is a solid product compared to its peers. It is significantly more compact but has 2 command dials, water splash proof and has good performance and image quality. Very good value for money if you're looking for DSLR camera under $1000

Indeed the K-30 is probably the best out of those cameras but the price might be a bit high.

The Sony is the most modern camera of those in your list. Still, as the others said: It might be worth taking the cameras in your hand and just feel them; try to handle them in a shop or so. Nowadays all cameras are good so you can't really go wrong. If AF is neccesary in the video mode, the Sony does that job pretty damn well - even better than the new 650D by Canon. Even the K-30, which only has a contrast based AF system, seems to use it better than the Canon 650D. The 550D and 600D don't have AF in videos.